GuitarBizarre

Case in point, Yngwie Malmsteen.

This is how people seem to think Yngwie Malmsteen sounds.




This is how Yngwie actually sounds.



My 2 cents: He's the victim of a movement he spawned, whose members were nigh on universally unable to replicate the elements of Ynwgie's music that were actually worth listening to, and focused on those that weren't, perhaps simply because replicating the more rigid and formulaic elements of his work is far easier to achieve simply through rigourous practice, rather than attempting to replicate the nuance or subtly different approach to individual pieces and passages that actually defines his style.

Even a single playing technique can go some way to justifying that statement - Vibrato.

Yngwie's is controlled, smooth, fluid, and can range between subtlety or extremes at any given point. The most important element here is control. Whatever he does with vibrato, he does it evenly, both in terms of speed and width. Even when he changes those two elements within the space of a single note, he does it with control and the changes are smoothly done. His use of the technique works WITH whatever he has composed and has elements of it to match. Wide, extreme vibrato precedes intense passages, subtle vibrato lends interesting flavours to slow passages. Use of one complements the other.

Most of his imitators however, this is not the case, as to use Fareri as an example again, his vibrato is extremely harsh and uncontrolled. It changes speed, changes width, and never seems to match up with the tempo of the track, always occuring at the same pace with the same width regardless of how slow or fast the track is. It occurs instantly when the note is struck, rather than building from the root of that note, meaning its use to build tension or suspense is sabotaged by the players impatience in applying it. It follows fast passages immediately, but rather than providing a rest in motion for a listener to contemplate the impact of the preceding passage, it serves as barely a footnote and is almost immediately swept away by a flurry of notes indistinguishable from those that came before in terms of approach and attack. The notes may be different, but they're all played with the same amount of attack and their rythms don't make even rudimentary use of rubato to lend a sense of motion, unlike those of Yngwie's music, which while no less measured or precise, uses rythmic flexibility and changes in attack to provide each passage its own identity.


I could go on forever comparing the two, but by now I've made my point. It could be I'm missing something in Fareri's music, a sublety of character that belies the flaws I see otherwise, an intentional focus on human imperfection contrasting robotic adherence to rules and formats, but I doubt it.


Does this make sense to anyone? Have I made some form of intelligent argument as to why there is a depth to Yngwie's music that his reputation would imply is non-existant, and that his imitators seem to have missed?


I won't declare Ynwgie's music is an artistic peak or intellectual goldmine, its arguably formulaic and certainly his style hasn't evolved significantly over his career, remaining virtually unchanged since its inception, but it certainly isn't so generic that his songs or passages are indistinguishable, much of his music features passages that are instantly recognisable and individual, though obviously of similar roots. I certainly think that many if not most of the common complaints levelled at his music fit far better the music of his imitators than they do Yngwie's own, if they were to fit that at all. Emotionless playing certainly doesn't seem to fit in my view, though perhaps a lack of development might. Depth of subject matter can't be claimed of Yngwie's music, when it has lyrics, but the delivery of those vocalists he works with, and the competency of his lyric writing is perfectly fitting, if not excellent, depending on the song or vocalist in question.

And last but not least, I point those of you who are sceptic to the opinion of one Mr. Guthrie Govan, who states that while he doesn't consider himself part of the shred scene, and that he has in fact become increasingly wary of it over time, Yngwie is one of few guitarists in that style who "Really sounds as if he means it".

__________________

Neapolitan

I don't know... it wasn't "totally awesome" but it is alright, I would like to see how he plays some of those lines, was he sweeping, or tapping or doing Paul Gilbert-hammer-ons etc etc???


I watch the video but I didn't hear him say that, but what I did hear in the Guthrie Govan video was:
:06 Clarence White
:13 Albert Lee
:15 Scotty Moore
:22 missed note
1:00 Cliff Gallop
(1:33 Brian never heard of James Joyce but he was like "awesome!")
4:29 Chet Atkins
4:31 Albert Lee
4:42 Hendrix on a budget
4:53 Clapton
5:00 Van Hallen
5:47 Atkins-esque "And now…the time is near…and so I face the final curtain!" (from the song My Way)

__________________

GuitarBizarre

I never said it was bereft of merit, but its as perfect an example as I could find on short notice, of the sorts of technique and speed obsessed compositions that sprang from the influence of 80's shred and Yngwie's neoclassical influence features strongly. If criticism were to be levelled at it then that criticism would be most apt were it of the flavour that Yngwie's music often recieves. I was attempting to illustrate the dissimilarity between the two approaches while pointing out that the flaws most would claim of Yngwie's work, apply more fittingly to Fareri's, while simultaneously expanding on that to provide analytical insight into why I don't feel those same criticisms apply extensively if at all to Yngwie's work, hence the discussion of vibrato and rubato, and their use in controlling mood and providing contrast within a piece.

He says that in this interview, not the video linked. I just gave the video to give an example of Guthrie's playing for those who weren't familiar with him. If thats really what you heard in that vid, then I'd say I achieved what I wanted to - A video that shows guthrie's versatility regarding guitar styles.

But then again, if you're out to try and attack Guthrie's credibility by implying he's a copycat or in some way inferior as a musician, then I really don't think theres much point continuing this discussion. You can accuse Guthrie of a number of things, but his playing and musicality commands respect. I've shown his music to dozens of people, most of whom despise shred and jump to the soapbox shouting about pointless wankery, and none of them have had anything but nice things to say about Guthrie and his playing. If his defense of Yngwie is sufficiently offensive to you that you need to attack him with such needling as a single missed note in an informal demonstration, or by implying that his licks are unoriginal by way of listing his influences, then I don't really see the relevance of the contribution. If you're not trying to do that, then I don't understand why you made the list without continuing it with a point or explanation. Its worth bearing in mind Guthrie has a long history as a session musician and therefore is going to be fully aware of whose style he's taking influence from, or modifying to achieve effect when he improvises these 'colour' passages during the interview. It demonstrates his versatility, it has no bearing on his creativity, and in any case his versatility is what lends credence to his statements regarding other players and their styles, because it demonstrates he understands and is capable of emulating the elements he lauds or puts down, and as such his opinion is informed and well researched as a musician and guitarist.

For my 2 cents, Guthrie's opinion should be afforded consideration - He's one of the most versatile guitarists on the planet, his playing style is exemplary in terms of control, you never get the impression he's only just keeping it together, and even in his many improvisation vids on youtube he manages to put across a sense of absolute control combined with extensive melodic freedom, never constrained by memorised licks or shapes. And he's demonstrated in his books and interviews multiple times that he holds an appreciation for shred without being in awe of it, and isn't subject to genre blindness regarding the shred movements weaknesses and excesses. Quite the opposite, many of his interviews show a distaste for technique for techniques sake, which is rare in a player of his ability and style.

__________________

Dr_Rez

I will admit black star is completely baddass. But I for one can only take souless wankery for so long.

What I dont get is the Yngwie has wonderful phrasing and compositional skills yet elects 90% of the time to run mindless scales s he gets ever closer to busting his pretentious load over his "hendrix inspired" guitar.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

GuitarBizarre

But you could say the same about, say, Talking Heads, spending 90% of their career making music that most people don't appreciate, (Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I've yet to meet someone who has tried to get into talking heads, who hasn't basically decided that they don't have an album that is consistently good, they have a lot of albums across which there are a good selection of great songs surrounded by weak ones) while occasionally proving they can make a fantastic song like Psycho Killer or Once In a Lifetime. But they don't engender the quickfire dismissal or hatred that Ynwgie does.

And even when that is the case with Yngwie, I would take issue with the idea that its 90% of the time. Black Star, Amberdawn, Queen in Love, Trilogy Suite, Crystal Ball, Deja Vu, How Many Miles To Babylon, Now Your Ships Are Burned, Making Love, Bedroom Eyes, in fact, the ENTIRE ALBUM Eclipse, INCLUDING the end instrumental. Even Fire and Ice, which starts off with a succession of sweeps, those sweeps outline a perfectly good chord progression, there are no wasted notes despite the crazy speed, each note serves to provide a listener with the impression of those chords. You could play the chord progression perfectly on a piano and emphasise each note of those chords, but all you would achieve would be the destruction of the sense of movement Yngwie's use of the sweeping technique allows. If you listen to Bach's Magnificat in D, VIII, Deposuit potentes, the vocal line and harpsichord together achieve the SAME THING.

Yngwie may have a penchant for techniques like this, but he isn't wasteful when he uses them. There are clear compositional reasons for doing what he does in every instance I've yet looked at. That isn't to say his music is always good, far from it, but he's not sitting down and wanking a shape over something, the shapes he uses are there for good reasons.

Unlike, to use another fareri example - YouTube - ‪francesco fareri shredding‬‏

Now yes he's very good, but he throws a "blues" lick into this demonstration that none of the shapes he flies through prior to its introduction outline or give context to. Yngwie doesn't do that, he always outlines his changes.

__________________

FaSho

This is what I think of when I think of Malmsteen or any G3 guitarist
Stuff like this:

Basically, shredheads playing as fast as they can, and occasionally trying to sound melodic. If this is what you mean by his reputation, than it's pretty accurate. Feel free to call me ignorant and tell me if that's my opinion then I must not understand the 'technical aspects' or some ****, but when it comes down to it, I'm really not interested in listening to music that you have to understand the technicality of an instrument, or how an instrument is played to appreciate..

__________________

Zer0

Whenever I hear one of these virtuoso guitarists like Malmsteen or Satriani they remind me of going down the road to the shop for a pack of cigarettes, in a Ferrari, while taking a detour around half the country to get there. Some people might enjoy driving around half the country but no I just want the pack of cigarettes please, and maybe enjoy the walk as well.

__________________

GuitarBizarre

I can understand your point in principle, but these people aren't trying to make a point WITH music as much as the point IS the music. To use a bicycle analogy, they're not bike commuting on one of these, they're going trail riding on one of these.

Thats the difference between the assumption and the actuality. To refer back to the Fire and Ice analysis I made earlier, nothing is wasted. Every action has a point. The song might not be about evoking imagery or telling a story like a Queen song or Pink Floyd song, or disseminating an ideology like a Sex Pistols song or Bikini Kill, it might simply be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed for what it is. The introductory elements outline a chord progression that has its own aesthetic value purely for the way its been done. It isn't done to be wasteful, its done for the value of the outcome itself, rather than to make an outcome that references outside ideas. Yes that outcome is derived from something, so you could call that a reference, but its referenced for the love of the thing, not what it represents.


FaSho, one video cannot determine an acts entire reputation is accurate. Mozart wrote music entitled Leck mich im Arsch (literally "Lick me in the arse"), but that doesn't devalue his other works, aesthetically, culturally, or otherwise, and certainly to some people he had a reputation as being boorish and rude, and even, much like Ynwgie and many shredders, self-indulgent. Indeed, according to this article that was the prevailing opinion, self-indulgent! Too many notes!. A detractor couldn't point to that one informal work and reputation of boorishness, and rationalise that his other music was devoid of value on the basis of one piece that was peurile and lowbrow, he was still a wonderful composer. In the same sense, Yngwie wrote Black Star and all manner of other wonderful songs that prove he's capable of composing works, and frequently does compose works that don't fit your pigeonhole. The discovery of something like that video doesn't devalue those works and as I noted above without even going through a quarter of his back catalogue, there are no shortage of songs a person can point to as evidence of that.

And no, I am in no way implying Yngwie should be compared to Mozart. The two have some parallels that are relevant, but Yngwie cannot compare to Amadeus in terms of talent, importance, skill, or indeed personality, given his legendary arrogance. I am merely illustrating a parallel. Nothing more, nothing less.

__________________

GuitarBizarre

I should note at this point by the way - I like Yngwie's music on a majority level, but I'm under no impressions he's a pariah or misunderstood genius. His music is what it is, and what it is is well composed and well played, with a healthy amount of it EXCELLENTLY composed, both on a techical and purely aesthetic level. Its not transcendent, or worthy of hero worship, its not artistically adventurous or conceptually incredible. Its not even a labour of blood sweat and tears, he composes quickly. Its not what I'd expect everyone to like and listen to, but it is well done, influential, and deservedly so, despite the lack of imagination shown by many of those influenced.

__________________

Farfisa

Ok, I don't really care for Yngwie or Satriani, but I no doubt respect the talent and overall skill they posses. You and I come from two opposite ends of the spectrum GB. I feel I like musicians who lean towards feeling more than technical skill, it feels more human to me and I feel I can relate to it more spiritually. Yngwie and Satriani definitely have feeling as I see them enjoying themselves on stage and not just standing there playing like a robot, but I just don't get into it as much. It feels just too formulaic to me.

I'm not saying I can't enjoy virtuosic guitar players, not at all. I just have a thing for musicians who have accumulated decades of experience due to experimenting and feeling for music alone.